Stephen Walt has once again raised the issue of dual loyalty of American Jews — this time in the context of the role of Dennis Ross in shaping Obama Administration policy in the direction of Israel. As I have argued previously, I think that Walt (and Mearsheimer) tend to underestimate the problem of Jewish dual loyalty. It’s often been said of Jews that they are just like everyone else, only more so. In the case of dual loyalty, it’s certainly true that other people have various loyalties, but no other group has had such a passionate attachment to a foreign country. As The Israel Lobby shows, the American Jewish community is galvanized around doing the bidding of a foreign government. Dissent within the Jewish community has been effectively silenced, and the most energized, radical elements of the Jewish community determine the direction of the entire community.
Given all that, it is certainly not surprising that issues of loyalty would be raised. And, because of their status as a wealthy, powerful elite, Jews, far more than other minority groups, have been able to influence American foreign policy in the direction of Israel despite making up less than 3% of the population.
The charge of dual loyalty is an ancient one (reviewed here under the heading “The Theme of Disloyalty”), present in Jewish religious writing. In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh states, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land” (Exod. 1:9–10).
Walt writes that the accusation of dual loyalty was “a nasty anti-Semitic canard in old Europe.” But, then as now, dual loyalty accusations had much more than a grain of truth. For example, between the mid-19th century and the Bolshevik Revolution, there can be little doubt that the Jewish Diaspora throughout Europe and America opposed the Russian government and often influenced policy in other countries to oppose Russia — often in opposition to the governments of those countries. In 1911, long before Jews attained the level of power in the US that they have now, there was a successful Jewish campaign to abrogate a US trade agreement with Russia aimed at getting Russia to change its policies on Jews in opposition to the views of the Taft Administration.
The similarities to today are striking: AIPAC has rammed through punitive trade restrictions on Iran not because such restrictions benefit the US, but because Iran is seen as threatening Israel. And now there is a major push to get the US to bomb Iran — again promoted by Israel’s friends in the US. (Here’s Bill Kristol stating that it’s better for the US to attack Iran than for Israel to have to do it.)
Walt writes:
Needless to say, in a melting-pot society like the United States, it was inevitable that many Americans would also have strong attachments to other countries. These different attachments may reflect ancestry, religious affiliation, personal experience (such as overseas study), or any number of other sources. The key point, however, is that in the United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments in political life. Americans can hold dual citizenship, for example, or form an interest group whose avowed purpose is to shape U.S. policy towards a specific country. This is how the American system of government works, and there is nothing “disloyal” about such conduct.
Dual loyalty issues therefore mesh with America as a multicultural society. Jewish dual loyalties are no different, say, from Mexican dual loyalties. But, whatever its legitimacy in multicultural America, dual loyalties are surely not ideal for the country as a whole because they detract from cohesion and sense of common interest and purpose. Whereas in the past assimilation was the norm (and was easy because the vast majority of immigrants were European ethnically), immigrants now are encouraged to retain their own language and culture, and they are encouraged to retrain powerful ties to their countries of origin.
Historically, this ideology of multiculturalism was the product of Jewish intellectuals (prominently Horace Kallen) designed to legitimize Jewish separateness in America while at the same time legitimizing the continuing ties between American Jews and the rest of the Diaspora. (Kallen, for example, was a strong Zionist and activist on behalf of Jews in Eastern Europe.) In the future we can expect that the US will be increasingly Balkanized as different ethnic and national groups jockey for political power in the US and seek to influence foreign policy in favor of the countries they left behind.
But I have to agree with Walt that even accepting the legitimacy of a multicultural model, people like Dennis Ross should not be allowed to have a voice within the administration. Walt points out that Ross has a long involvement with pro-Israel activist organizations, such as being director of WINEP.
But Ross’s ties to Israel are even deeper than that. Until his appointment as Middle East envoy in the Obama Administration, from 2002–2009 Ross was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. This organization has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”
The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is interesting because it focuses on the threat of Iran and but also because it sees people like Stephen Walt as a threat to Israel:
The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.
In other words, Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. Dennis Ross is doing his best to promote exactly this view within the Obama administration.
One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.
Of course, that’s what we are seeing now. But we needn’t be naïve. Jews like Dennis Ross are clearly far more loyal to Israel than to the US. Speaking as a psychologist, they wouldn’t be able to see a conflict of interest between the US and Israel if it was staring them in the face. Indeed, as Gore Vidal said of Norman Podhoretz, they are unregistered agents of a foreign government.
In a sane society, there would be a huge groundswell of public opposition to Ross’s appointment–as there has been for a number of Obama’s appointments. But that won’t happen.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Let’s meditate on this:
Walt Quote: “The key point, however, is that in the United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments in political life.”
So society has been inverted into a society were it is legitimate to be dual loyal. And the people of that functional past society were bad, not because the opinions about Jewish dual loyalty were incorrect — it turns out, but because they were not sufficiently open-minded about the correctness of being dual loyal. That was the real canard.
I imagine when the IQ-race connection comes out something similar will be said: “The Key point, however, is that Affirmative action is entirely deserved to help achieve equality…”
………
Ok, with regards Jewish loyalty 1) What is the best way to take control of this situation. That is, do we argue that dual loyalty is bad or do we use it to justify our own dual loyalty as European and White Firsters?
How can we prevent this inverted logic from happening again and again?
We should also have our JPPPI-style organizations. They need some competition. Monopoly is unhealthy, according to capitalism…
In a sane society,
There sir, is the problem!
Just check out the link and read prof. MacDonald’s SAID once more. Isn’t that just incredible and bizarre. These guys have been around since the days of the pharaos… We’re basically dealing with the same problems thousands of years later. Where are the Romans now? The Egyptians? They’re all gone.
Great post, Kevin, but you wrote that “no other group has had such a passionate attachment to a foreign country.” I don’t wanna be pedantic about that phrase, but please forgive me if I point out to the readers what you already know – that the “passionate attachment” in question is not really to a foreign country but to the cosmopolitan Jewish Diaspora. According to Walt, the “dual loyalty” charge existed in 19th century Europe, before the country of Israel was founded – and any notion of Jews acting in their own self interest with highly publicized conferences and fund raising drives to establish their own state was pure fiction. Indeed, it was nothing more than a “nasty anti-Semitic canard.” In Walt’s alternate reality, there was no actual loyalty to the Zionist goal of creating the country in question.
Regarding trade, one of the issues that seems to have been shoved down the memory hole involves the negotiations at the close of the cold war that let many thousands of Jews emigrate from the Soviet Union to the U.S. as a condition for repealing the 1974 Jackson-Vanik trade embargo. In fact, so many Soviet Jews came here that Jewish NJ Senator Lautenberg had to change the law to let more in. This “Lautenberg Amendment,” although little known, has been renewed repeatedly every year. As Vdare correctly states, the amendment is so mysterious that there is NO press available about it. For any grad students out there, use your research resources and try to find ANY press about the Lautenberg amendment.
http://www.vdare.com/allen/lautenberg.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/17/world/soviets-to-liberalize-emigration-hoping-to-gain-us-trade-deal.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/06/world/us-proposes-rise-of-up-to-150000-in-new-refugees.html?pagewanted=1
If the preservation of one’s race is the highest value, then loyalty to one’s country of residence, or anything else, must take second place. It seems to me that this whole article by Walt is only an attempt to rationalize a melting pot society, to try to find a way to make it work in spite of its inherent contradictions. By so doing I suppose he’s trying to rehabilitate himself a bit in the Jews’ eyes, or at least evade a renewed charge of anti-semitism. But he shies away from the issue, which is the question every citizen must ask himself: Shall loyalty to race come first? The Jew alone answers this question correctly, in the affirmative. Not wishing to offend or do anything so déclassé as stick up for his own race, Walt can’t face this squarely, because that would be like an open call for a pogrom.
granted, their numbers are small but there are more than enough Israeli activists and journalists who have shed light on the ISsraeli occupation and expansion that no one seriously informed about the issue cannot know what’s going on, whats more, these israeli jews have given people an opening to confront the lobby – as walt and mershiemer did – and virtually no one has taken up the slack
your average american politician has to know what’s going on but is scared out of his wits (see Paul Findley’s book, they dare speak out)
the internet has made a dent (though not as much as i expected) on the information monopoly but progress is surprisingly slow – and white Obama supporters are still basking in their sydney poiteir fantasies despite the fact the guy has increased the war machine… and iran will probably be bombed – will that be the last straw?
Mark Weber over at IHR though the 73 was was the last straw – and look how far we have come!
Once Zionists would at least publically condemn Jonathon Pollards- now they brazenly defend israelie spies las with the recent AIPAC scandal..
on a fairly regular basis, israeli prime ministers almost delight in humiliating US presidents..
Lesacre asked the question, “Ok, with regards Jewish loyalty 1) What is the best way to take control of this situation. That is, do we argue that dual loyalty is bad or do we use it to justify our own dual loyalty as European and White Firsters?”
IMHO, in the current PC environment there is no way to change “America” back to a “White” nation by denying non-whites their subjectively felt identities. The brainwashing is too deep at this stage.
The thing to do is use “jew-jitsu” and capture the energy flow of the PC mindset regarding identity. Do this by claiming the same right to an identity for White European (Americans). Yes, we all know how any attempt to “be White in public” has been demonized, but there is really no other option. We can’t just stand in the corner waiting for “them” to give us their assent to have our own White Identity.
Many useful ideas for capturing this energy flow can be found at sites like http://www.resistingdefamation.org and the sound files of http://www.whiterabbitradio.net. All good. But just being “good” don’t mean a damned thing unless they are actually USED in your personal discourse whenever possible.
Things have gotten to the point where EVERY non-White group identity in the USA is permitted its private particularism. Let’s join the party.
More ideas for “snappy comebacks” are presented by Pip Pockets in the most recent Radio Free Virginia podcast over at http://www.occidentaldissent.com.
Start listening at about 12 minutes into the show, and Pip gives quite a few phrasings useful to squelch any criticism of a person being a “White Advocate” in public.
Walt has imbibed the dogma of multiculturalism first formulated by Jews to serve their ethnic interests. Walt only opposes the Jews on the basis of what is good for the Jews. Walt is an extended phenotype of Jewry, he is an emasculated cur.
‘But…but…shouldn’t we at least give Walt some Brownie points for standing up to the Jews as far as he does?’
No, no kudos handed out for race betrayal, even if it is only half-assed race betrayal, it is still race betrayal.
‘Given all that, it is certainly not surprising that issues of loyalty would be raised.’ In last World War Yankee Doodles should not Japanese to camps send but should Jews to camps send. I insurance sell not to Jews. Jew buy low sell high IMHO. Read please American ‘To watch Jews is to see the world clearly’ by Masami Uno. Smoke break over now. Roger over and out IMHO.
“The thing to do is use “jew-jitsu” and capture the energy flow of the PC mindset regarding identity. Do this by claiming the same right to an identity for White European (Americans).”
First, notice that you have to say White European (Americans). We need to settle on a name. Is it White, is it European, should we all convert to Asatru — and demand religious rights? Should we just invent a new name like ‘Latino?’ Has anyone conducted a thorough analysis of this?
Second, we need to settle on one major organization that is equivalent to La Raza. This needs to be an interest organization and separate from A3P, as a political party, so it can maximize it’s reach. What’s out there?
As for the interest organization, the first goal needs to be legitimizing White interest. Has anyone looked into how the Indian Lobby, La raza, feminists, and gay movements, ect did it?
Lesacre,
“We need to settle on a name. Is it White, is it European”
I dont think the name really matters that much. We have a few terms which mean the same thing: “White” and “European American” are the most common, with a few derivations. In other words, people of European descent with a commitment to European culture. These names are now so deeply ingrained that its probably pointless to try to change them, and of course a rose is a rose by any other name.
“Ok, with regards Jewish loyalty 1) What is the best way to take control of this situation. That is, do we argue that dual loyalty is bad or do we use it to justify our own dual loyalty as European and White Firsters?”
If you are looking to choose a tactic, you would use Jews’ dual loyalty to point out that they are not beneficial for the U.S. There really isnt a dual loyalty issue with Europeans, as we have no loyalty to England or Germany, etc., and certainly do not promote the interests of those nations in U.S. politics in any significant way. Being White Firsters has to do with ethnocentrism and ethnic identity, which is really a separate issue (all ethnic groups have ethnocentrism, including Hispanics, Blacks and Asians, whether or not they have loyalties to a different nation or not).
“What is the best way to take control of this situation”
Getting back to this statement, “taking control of the situation” will ultimately have to be some form of secession. There are many options for this, but considering the demographic picture and the influence of the hostile elite, secession is probably the only real course of action that makes sense. A promising option is to seek a strong form of states’ rights that are similar to autonomy. Already, our Pacific protectorates such as Samoa have control over their immigration policy, and several states have passed 10th Amendment statements that challenge federal authority in certain areas. If states could obtain control over their immigration policy, and opt out of over-reaching federal laws, they would have a de facto secession without needing to do so formally.
Well Gosh: How About Tri-Partite Loyalty?–Would That Work?
(Apollonian, 9 Apr 10)
Golly gee, but this is such difficult, mysterious issue about “dual loyalty” isn’t it?–as if there could even be slightest excuse for anything other than simple, ABSOLUTE, un-questioned loyalty ONLY to USA and its Constitution, etc. For how could USA possibly take second-place to absolute one and only loyalty?–only by means of gross subversion.
Obvious reduction-to-absurd is triple (tri-partite) loyalty–why wouldn’t that be feasible if we accept “dual-loyalty”? What then about four-way loyalty?–why not loyalty to all and any? Thus slowly we learn loyalty, by its necessary nature is only ultimately a one-way thing. And “dual-loyalty” is mere euphemism to TREASON–even though it DOES seem to “prosper,” doesn’t it?
So “dual-loyalty” is just gross pretext to TREASON, pure and simple–all of it bought and paid for by the false-god of MAMMON, that’s all.
And USA requires loyalty to original US Constitution, hence foremost Western and Christian value of TRUTH above all–which necessarily excludes Jews–but they got that irresistable MONEY, u see.
Poor, stupid gentiles–addicted to MAMMON god; there’s just no hope for them is there?–not for a good while anyway–till this present Mammon god fades away in its turn through the course of CYCLIC history of “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, I submit.
Thus it always is in CYCLIC “Decline…,” stupid gentiles submerged within HUBRIS of pretended, imagined perfectly “free” human will, imagining they can serve two (or more) Gods.
Thus only possible “solution,” such as it is, is DISASTER, whence people have benefit of shock-therapy -type experience, and maybe, if they’re lucky, they’ll realize the only proper way is to heed to truth and honesty.
So my observation is Christianity, by which leadership stays in touch w. the dear volk, must be understood properly–AGAINST HERESY. Thus Christianity is not (primarily) about idiotic “love”–or mystic putridity of “faith”–except as “faith” is properly understood, as LOYALTY.
Thus honest people, now for chance of UNITY, must understand Christianity for what it was designed to be: ANTI-SEMITISM (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13), again, in honor of TRUTH as Gosp. JOHN 14:6, thus the Aristotelian OBJECTIVE reality, necessary criterion of any possible truth, against Jew subjectivism and moralism-Pharisaism founded upon Pelagianist, hereticalist perfectly “free” human will.
CONCLUSION: So now what?–well, we just have to have patience and strength to weather present storm of Pelagianistic MAMMONISM as it reduces itself to inevitable absurdity, strength of US Dollar, for thematic example, soon to falling and collapsing. For only then, evidently, will this MAMMON devil be destroyed, humanity thereupon allowed a chance to reviving, resuscitating. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Dennis Ross said in 2008:
“On the question of Israel, … he(obama) would describe it as a commitment of the head and heart”.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030931.html
The Jewish elites were fully behind Obama because he appears to have accepted their pressure to attack Iranians in the name of USA.
Apparently, Bush isolated Iran only to accelerate Iranian projects. But Obama will :
“…use our willingness to talk as a means to get others to actually apply more pressure on the Iranians, as a way to ensure the talks’ success, but also because the talks themselves send a signal [to] those who fear [that] applying more pressure means you’re descending toward a slippery slope of confrontation.”